PSX Extreme

Site Stats

Obsidian: "Choice" Determines A "True Role-Playing Game"

We may never settle on an exact definition of "role-playing" that satisfies all interested parties, but Obsidian Entertainment boss Feargus Urquhart believes the one primary element is "choice."

In speaking to IncGamers, Urquhart says choice separates a "true RPG" from a game that simply has RPG elements. These days, he says role-playing can be confused with other genres and it can be difficult to spot the "real RPG," which must offer freedom and decision-making to the player. In other words, without consequences; if your actions have no real impact on the game, it's just not an RPG. Said Urquhart:

"This is what I think matters and this is what I love about making role-playing games is that choice. If you don't offer different endings, you don't offer ramifications then you don't have consequences. The consequences mean that if I chose to do 'this', then 'this' is going to happen and not 'this.'

That kind of changes the game and I think it also really does, which I think is more unique to role-playing games, is deployability."

It's true that role-playing elements can be found in many other genres. Straight-up action slashfests often utilize such traits, like leveling up, customizable characters, buying weapons and equipment; even towns to explore. The lines really are getting very, very blurry. But we do have one thing we can say definitively: Obsidian, if Dungeon Siege III turns out to be as technically broken as Alpha Protocol, we really won't care about "choice." You actually have to make a good game, too.

Yea, Dragon age: Origins is awesome. If you have a decent PC I'd suggest Mass Effect (1+2). ME2 is more shooter than RPG but it's still awesome. Top notch voice acting, witty writing and a good story (ME1's story was better imo, though).I suggested PC over 360 because it's a better overall experience on PC ;)

"Choice" is practically evdient in every single game. Some are really obvious, like Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins (your responses ijn conversations), and some are subtle, but there (in Call of Duty, would you go with an M4 with a silencer, or an FA-MAS with a grenade launcher?).

This sounds suspiciously like what another western game producer tried to say while simultaneously slamming games with strong narratives. Choice is important, but an RPG is Role playing game, you play a role in a game, it's a role playing game. Traditional RPGs had strong narratives. I'm tired of pompous little men trying to redefine the genre so that their title fits it better than anyone else's. Why don't these people stop trying to move the goal posts and simply deliver bloody good games?

Sorry, I think that is a very narrow definition. RPGs with strong narratives (might as well simply say JRPGs) generally have a standard story outcome. The point of the game, much like the point of a novel, is to play through the story to experience it and find out what happens in the end. Injecting consequences into that makes completing the story difficult if you - for example - lose a character too early, or resolve an even at the wrong time leading to consequences that invalidate other aspects of the story.

In a traditional RPG with a strong narrative the decisions you make are about your characters and party and how they are made up and develop. The story is the setting, it's like the matte painting upon which your group plays.

When you're reading through a long and immersive novel, Shogun for example. If the reader had choice, what would have happened if Blackthorn had managed to go through with his attempted seppuku? What if he had not decided to act like a crazy man when escaping from Ochiba's forces in Osaka? If the reader makes the wrong choice, the rest of the book is moot.

To me this is the falsehood that lurks behind this call for choice and consequence. RPGs that have that strong narrative are interactive novels where you can interact with the fictional world, but follow the story that has been written. Like a novel you want to find out how it finishes.

Choice is fine, but needs to be very carefully handled. In a more open game style, perhaps it can work, but even then, somehow someone has to have written every possible outcome and so the number of outcomes and paths through the story is still limited. Heavy Rain does a fantastic job of that. but to say that games that don't follow that style of story presentation without the multiple paths and endings are not true RPGs is to dismiss an entire genre of game.Last edited by TheHighlander on 6/25/2010 12:27:53 PM

Square called them RPG's because that's is what they are. This is a pretty new argument nobody was accusing Chrono Trigger of mislabeling, and it shouldn't be occurring now because Western developers are deciding they are going to change the standard for what the definition is. Also I would say Heavy Rain is basically a complete upgrade of the old Lucasarts adventure game type, without all the items and random puzzles. Yes it's a great game but to say it's more RPG than any FF is missing the point that what makes an RPG is the fact that you're not just playing the game you're basically living the experience of a journey, choosing how your character grows, what abilities mean most to your play style. Choice is an aspect of RPG's now yes, but so are the above aspects, the term RPG comes from the old D&D games which I'm sure have more in common with FF, than Mass Effect, or Alpha Protocol.

So we're back at this what is a true RPG question again huh...well until the contents of an RPG are thoroughly defined as necessities to a game's RPG-ish nature, there is no way to distinguish between an RPG and a game heavily imbued with RPG elements.

Now from my experience with gaming specifically the RPG styled games, their are reoccurring elements that pattern the so-called RPG genre. Not all these elements are present in all RPGs but usually most of these elements tend to show up in games boasting their RPG essence.

Exploration, towns, shops, character customization (ranging from stat building and leveling up to attire customizations), party members, heavily focused narrative, possibility of side-quests, NPC's, weapon upgrades, and memorable soundtracks, etc.

Can't we all just get along? I enjoy both types of RPGs. And hey, jrpgs were here first (pen and paper people aside) and have epic stories. That's what I grew up on. Now that our systems can handle vast worlds with tons of choices and such, that's totally cool for a wanderlust experience but the story is always thin.

Not sure why this guy would want to piss off jrpg fans or even squeeze that genre out of the mix, it's just unprofessional.

In regards to Alpha Protocol, I already knew this game was crap long befor it was release.

As for Feargus Urquhart opinion of what an "true rpg" is, first of all the ONLY TRUE RPG in the world is the D&D table top games. Secondly his opinion only reflect the closed-minded opinions of western game developers and this where I say to Urquhart, go **** yourself. When it come to video games RPG's come in many types and they clearly don't revovle his fantasy world.

My first reaction upon reading this was 'so Heavy Rain is an RPG while Fallout 3 is not?' I don't see how the choices you made in FO3 affect the story in any way, except the brief intervals where what you do matters.

Here's what I want to see from Obsidian. New Vegas. Different potential outcomes from each of the main story missions, each one resulting in a different string of missions from that point forwards. Can you do that Mr Urquhart? Or can you just run your mouth like the dozens of other idiots who think they know what they're talking about?

My first reaction upon reading this was 'so Heavy Rain is an RPG while Fallout 3 is not?' I don't see how the choices you made in FO3 affect the story in any way, except the brief intervals where what you do matters.

Here's what I want to see from Obsidian. New Vegas. Different potential outcomes from each of the main story missions, each one resulting in a different string of missions from that point forwards. Can you do that Mr Urquhart? Or can you just run your mouth like the dozens of other idiots who think they know what they're talking about?

My first reaction upon reading this was 'so Heavy Rain is an RPG while Fallout 3 is not?' I don't see how the choices you made in FO3 affect the story in any way, except the brief intervals where what you do matters.

Here's what I want to see from Obsidian. New Vegas. Different potential outcomes from each of the main story missions, each one resulting in a different string of missions from that point forwards. Can you do that Mr Urquhart? Or can you just run your mouth like the dozens of other idiots who think they know what they're talking about?

hes right!
well he should not be, choice should not be exclusive to RPGs but for some reason it is.
choices and consequences should be in every game, be it shooter, survival horror, puzzle, action adventure whatever.
thats what made alpha protocol so interesting, that and the story.
its allot of fun making decisions playing on than watching your decisions change the face of the game.
they make it really hard in alpha protocol too, some times if your a complete di** to people you will suffer for it.
but sometimes it will be a good thing, because those people were going to back stab you but since they already hate you they did not get the chance.
they really made it hard to judge who you should trust and who you cant.